Live Now

Government and Politics

July 17, 2026 1:26PM

Trump’s “Election Fraud” Declassification Bust

By Patrick G. Eddington
Listen to this article
Generated with ElevenLabs AI technology.
Loading the Elevenlabs Text to Speech AudioNative Player...

Last night during his national address, President Trump claimed that key documents he ordered declassified demonstrate that the US Intelligence Community (IC) withheld or otherwise soft-pedaled evidence of foreign election interference or voting machine vulnerabilities. The documents at issue—released in a process that can be charitably described as irregular at best—tell a different story.

One very recent CIA document (dated June 29, 2026) had this to say about allegations of Venezuelan government efforts to manipulate electronic voting systems:

Extract from CIA Note on voting machine intel, June 29, 2026

Read the rest of this post →

Related Tags
Criminal Justice, Government and Politics
July 2, 2026 4:37PM

Gen Z Fails Basic Civics Quiz as America Nears Its 250th

By Jonah Messinger and Emily Ekins
Listen to this article
Generated with ElevenLabs AI technology.
Loading the Elevenlabs Text to Speech AudioNative Player...

The new Cato Institute Fourth of July Survey, conducted with Morning Consult, asked seven basic civic knowledge questions as the country celebrates the nation’s 250th anniversary. A majority of Gen Z correctly answered only one of them.

Gen Z Civic Questions Incorrect

While about two-thirds (66%) of Gen Z correctly identified George Washington as the first president, a substantial minority (34%) could not.

Nearly two-thirds (61%) of Americans under 30 are unaware of what America’s 250th is commemorating this year, while just 39% know we are celebrating the adoption of the Declaration of Independence. Of those who answered incorrectly, 11% thought America’s 250th was celebrating the first presidential election, 8% thought it was the ratification of the Constitution, 7% thought it was the victory of the Revolutionary War, 4% thought it was the pilgrims’ landing at Plymouth Rock, 1% said it was the founding of Jamestown, and 30% admitted they didn’t know what America’s 250th is about.

A majority (52%) of Gen Z Americans also don’t know what country from which the American colonies declared their independence, while 48% correctly answered that it was Great Britain. 

More importantly, two-thirds (67%) of Gen Z do not know why the American colonies declared independence from Great Britain, while 33% correctly answered that it was to protest high taxes and a lack of representation in government. 

Six in ten Americans (64%) under 30 likewise don’t know what the main purpose of the US Constitution is. Instead, 14% thought the main purpose of the Constitution was to declare independence from Great Britain (which is what the Declaration of Independence did), 17% thought the main purpose was to create a presidency, Congress, and Supreme Court, 8% thought it was to list all federal laws, and 4% thought it was to create two major political parties. Another 21% admitted they didn’t know. Only 36% knew that the main purpose of the Constitution is to establish and limit the powers of government.

Constitution Correct (4th of July 26)

More than two-thirds (68%) did not know who has final say if the president and the Supreme Court disagree about whether a president’s actions are constitutional; 32% knew that the Supreme Court has the final say.

Gen Z came close to knowing that the federal government has three separate branches, with 50% who answered correctly and 50% who did not.

Young Americans performed the worst of any generation on all seven questions. Despite correctly identifying the first president as George Washington (66%), that is 11 points lower than Americans overall (77%) and 28 points lower than the nation’s seniors (94%). Gen Z was the only generation to fail to identify Great Britain as the country we declared independence from (52% incorrect).

Implications

As Gen Z comes of age and takes a more predominant role in shaping this nation’s future, their lack of knowledge of the country’s history may exacerbate an already concerning trend. The problem is not merely that many young Americans cannot recall historical facts. It is that without understanding that history, they are less likely to understand why the Constitution was written as it was: to restrain government power, protect individual liberty, and preserve self-government. 

This same poll found that 57% of Americans and 60% of Gen Z believe that America has strayed from its founding principles. That drift will likely accelerate if rising generations do not understand the historical experiences that helped Americans recognize the value of those principles. It becomes increasingly difficult to stay true to the country’s founding principles when we do not know the reasons that explain why those principles matter.

Methodology

The Cato Institute 2026 4th of July Survey was designed and conducted by the Cato Institute in collaboration with Morning Consult. MorningConsult collected responses online June 25–26, 2026, from a national sample of 2,253 Americans 18 years of age and older. The margin of error for the survey is ± 2 percentage points at the 95 percent level of confidence.

Full TOPLINES and METHODOLOGY for the survey can be found HERE, and CROSSTABS can be found HERE. Detailed tables can be found HERE.

Related Tags
Constitution and Law, Government and Politics, Public Opinion
July 2, 2026 9:14AM

On the Moral Foundations of America

By Roger Pilon
Listen to this article
Generated with ElevenLabs AI technology.
Loading the Elevenlabs Text to Speech AudioNative Player...
declaration
(Getty Images)

This article appeared in the Jewish Policy Center’s Fall 2022 “inFOCUS” magazine symposium on “What Makes America America.”

Of all that makes America—the subject of this symposium—nothing has been more crucial or consequential than our having constituted ourselves as a people on sound moral, political, and legal principles—the “self-evident truths” set forth in our Declaration of Independence and then instituted through our Constitution as corrected by the Civil War Amendments—for those principles are the very foundation of our liberty.

Yet many Americans today seriously misunderstand them, while still others reject even their preconditions—reason, objectivity, and free speech. Focusing on a history of genuine sins—and oblivious or indifferent to the distinction between the principles and their execution by imperfect people—these critics claim that we’re a fundamentally flawed nation. Theirs is a utopian vision, the apotheosis of a collectivist turn the nation took during the Progressive Era.

I’ve told this tale in these pages before, but it’s worth retelling, with a focus on those foundational principles and their implications. Our war for independence secured them, practically, but that war was no mere revolt against oppressive rule. Its deeper meaning is revealed in the motto on the Great Seal of the United States, commissioned on the evening of July 4, 1776, Novus Ordo Seclorum: a new order of the ages (is born). “We the people” were ordering our fortunes. And so, we begin our tale by plumbing, very briefly, our founding documents.

The Declaration of Independence

America’s birth certificate, the Declaration of Independence, memorialized the moment when we declared ourselves a distinct people, a new nation. Were it a mere political document, however, it would not have so endured in our national consciousness. Nor would it have inspired countless millions around the world ever since, leading many to leave their homelands to begin life anew under its promise. It has so inspired because, fundamentally, it is a profound moral statement. Invoking “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” common to all who will reason, it was written not only to declare but to justify our independence.

In a few brief lines, penned near the start of our struggle for independence, the Founders distilled their moral and political vision: we were a nation of free people, endowed with equal natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, secured by governments instituted for that purpose, their just powers derived from the consent of the governed.

Notice the order of things: the moral vision comes first, the political and legal vision drawn from it, second. The Founders were concerned ultimately with the principles of legitimate government, but those rest on moral principles. And the most basic of those is individual freedom, the equal right of all to pursue happiness as we wish, provided we respect the same right in others. Thus, equality, so misunderstood today, is for government to secure only insofar as it concerns equality before a law of equal basic rights.

Contrast that vision with today’s democratic order, which begins with government, increasingly conflates moral and legal rights, and dispenses rights, at best, as transient majorities will them, but more commonly as special interests manipulate the levers of power, rendering us all dependent on government in so many ways, while politicizing everything in its wake. For the Founders, rather than politics determining our rights, it was morality limiting politics and framing law: in short, liberty through limited government dedicated to that end. They were concerned mainly about what government could do to them—look at the Bill of Rights—not what it should do for them.

Indeed, when they turned to government, they wrote: “That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.” Government is thus twice limited: by its end, to secure our rights; and by its means, which must flow, if they’re legitimate, from our consent. But in its many contexts, from ratification to periodic elections, consent can never be more than imperfect—the potential for the tyranny of the majority is ever present. Yet here’s the silver lining in that: given the practical limits of consent and our basic right to individual freedom, we derive a presumption against government and for living most of our lives freely in the private sector. We’re not, nor should we ever be, “all in this together,” with everything subject to political determination. Government should be our last resort. For many today, it’s their first. Here’s how the Framers guarded against that.

The Constitution

We see their approach to political legitimacy throughout the Constitution. In the Preamble, all power rests initially with “We the People,” who “do ordain and establish this Constitution.” Government does not give us our rights: we already have them—our natural rights. We give the government its powers. The first sentence after the Preamble says that: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress.” By implication, not all such powers were “herein granted.” Article I, Section 8, shows that Congress has only 18 such powers or ends. And the Tenth Amendment, the last documentary evidence from the founding period, shows that powers not granted to the federal government, nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the states—or to the people, never having been granted to either level of government. Thus, federalism and individual freedom, respectively. Add the Ninth Amendment, which says that, in addition to the rights enumerated in the first eight amendments, others “retained by the people” shall not be “denied or disparaged.” Thus, the natural rights we never gave up when we left the state of nature to create government. There, in a nutshell, is the theory of the Constitution: a sea of rights, most secured by the states under the common law; islands of federal power, authorized by the people through ratification.

Pocket Constitution
The Cato Pocket Constitution. (Cato Institute).

But in addition to the enumeration of federal powers and federalism, other constitutional restraints included: the separation of powers, with each branch defined functionally; a bicameral legislature, with each chamber constituted differently; a unitary executive with veto power, chosen through the Electoral College; an independent judiciary with implicit power, under our written Constitution, to check the political branches; and periodic elections, not to expand federal powers, a power that rests with the people through ratification, but to fill constitutional offices. All of that is explained in the Federalist, written to assuage Anti-Federalists who wanted even more limited government. There wasn’t a socialist on either side.

The Framers knew, of course, that the Constitution’s oblique recognition of slavery, made necessary to secure unity among the 13 states, was inconsistent with their founding principles. They hoped the institution would wither away over time. It did not. It took a Civil War and the ratification of the Civil War Amendments to end slavery, to provide federal remedies against state violations of our rights, and thus to “complete” the Constitution by incorporating at last the grand principles of the Declaration in law, if not, alas, in fact.

Progressivism

With the rise of progressivism late in the 19th century, plus an ever-latent populism, that constitutional design came under systematic assault. Progressives were social engineers. Coming from the elite universities of the Northeast, enamored of the new social sciences, and looking to European political models, they were eager to bring change through government. Woodrow Wilson complained that the Constitution was a straitjacket—it was—while Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. deferred often to political majorities. Still, in the early decades of the 20th century, the courts tended more often to enforce constitutional restraints on expansive government, especially after Franklin Roosevelt and his New Deal came to power.

Things came to a head after the landslide election of 1936, when Roosevelt introduced his infamous threat to pack the Supreme Court with six new members. Uproar in the nation ensued: not even the 4‑to‑1 Democratic House would go along. Nonetheless, the Court got the message—the famous switch in time that saved nine. It began effectively rewriting the Constitution without benefit of constitutional amendment. In 1937, it gave vastly expanded readings of both Congress’s power to tax and spend “for the General Welfare of the United States” and its power to regulate commerce “among the States,” thus unleashing the modern welfare and regulatory states, respectively. In 1938, it bifurcated the Bill of Rights and instituted a bifurcated theory of judicial review, effectively reducing economic liberty to a second-class status. And in 1943, the Court enabled Congress to delegate ever more of its legislative powers to the now ever-expanding executive branch agencies—the modern administrative state where most of our law today is made, executed, and adjudicated by politically unaccountable bureaucrats, thus undermining the separation of powers principle.

Everything Politicized

With that New Deal constitutional revolution, our Constitution for limited government was effectively inverted: the presumption was now for government programs and against liberty, except for certain “fundamental” rights as selected by judges. During his first term, Roosevelt ignored the White House faction that argued that his programs would require a constitutional amendment. Indeed, here he is writing to the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee in 1935: “I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the suggested legislation.” But perhaps no one put this new vision more starkly, and honestly, than Rexford Tugwell, a principal architect of Roosevelt’s programs. Reflecting on his work some three decades later, he wrote: “To the extent that these new social virtues [i.e., New Deal policies] developed, they were tortured interpretations of a document [i.e., the Constitution] intended to prevent them.” They knew exactly what they were doing; they were turning the Constitution on its head.

The modern administrative state has followed and grown exponentially, the redistributive and regulatory state we know and love so well. But as we’ve come to demand ever more goods and services from governments at every level—and have politicized everything from business to education, health care, the arts, news (NPR), and the rule of law itself—we’ve also grown less willing to pay for all that we demand. So, we borrow. The national debt today exceeds $30 trillion—that’s trillion—and unfunded liabilities vastly exceed that. Worse still, those debts are growing, even as our major “entitlement” programs will soon exhaust their so-called trust funds. As history demonstrates, this cannot end well.

The original design was one for individual liberty—and individual responsibility. It was meant to limit the scope of government, mainly by limiting the ends of government and the powers of government officials, thus disciplining them. But it was meant also to discipline us, the people. The core misunderstanding of so many today is that government was created to solve our every problem, from health care to childcare, education, housing, inequality, student debt, and on, and on, ad infinitum.

Grounds for Hope

But all is not lost, yet, for elements of the Constitution remain, and in recent years we’ve seen them employed. There is, first, federalism. True, in 1913, when progressivism was ascending, two constitutional amendments enhanced the centralization of power in Washington: the Sixteenth Amendment, creating the federal income tax; and the Seventeenth Amendment, which provided for the direct election of senators who then became more interested in their constituents than in their states as states. But states retain enough independent sovereignty to enable the original design for “competitive federalism” to work. As we’ve seen for some time now, people and firms are voting with their feet to find that mix of taxes, regulations, and even social policy that they wish to enjoy. The political market will eventually restore discipline if the federal government does not intervene.

Second, over the last few decades we’ve seen our independent courts—the envy of every other nation—rediscover our written Constitution in numerous ways. In a seminal 1995 decision, the Supreme Court revived the doctrine of enumerated powers—albeit only at the edges—when it invoked “First Principles” in holding, for the first time in 58 years, that Congress had exceeded its authority to regulate interstate commerce, a finding the Court has since repeated several times. More recently, the Court has also taken steps to rein in the administrative state, which has become a law unto itself. And in the rights area, here too courts have been increasingly active in restoring the original understanding of freedom in several domains—the economy, religion, education, and more.

Third, speaking of education and the politicization thereof, here especially there is reason for hope, not least because the decline of educational standards at every level goes far toward explaining our current situation. That can be addressed only by getting government monopolies out of the business, for education is a private good, like other such goods, notwithstanding government’s legitimate interest in the welfare of children. Recent court decisions from around the country have opened that possibility.

Finally, the franchise today is wider than it has ever been, and our elections are generally fair. Guaranteed by the documents that make America America, those elections are crucial. James Madison, the principal author of the Constitution, wrote in Federalist No. 51: “A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.” I have outlined those auxiliary precautions and the moral principles on which they rest. It is now up to us, the people, to become “the primary control on the government” through our votes and our attention to the principles that define us as a nation.

No less than Benjamin Franklin alluded to that when he was asked, upon leaving Independence Hall at the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention, what kind of government the Framers had given us: “A republic,” he replied, “if you can keep it.”

Roger Pilon is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and the founding director emeritus of Cato’s Center for Constitutional Studies.

To purchase a copy of The Cato Pocket Constitution, click here. 

Related Tags
Constitutional Law, Free Speech and Civil Liberties, Government and Politics
July 2, 2026 7:32AM

New Poll: Nearly Half of Americans Don’t Know What America’s 250th Is Celebrating

By Emily Ekins
Listen to this article
Generated with ElevenLabs AI technology.
Loading the Elevenlabs Text to Speech AudioNative Player...
86% are grateful to be American, 70% say Founding principles remain relevant today, 57% say the US has moved away from its founding principles, 56% worry the US could lose its freedom over the next 50 years. 58% say no political party should be trusted with too much power.
elections, american flag
(Getty Images)

A new national survey from the Cato Institute, conducted in collaboration with Morning Consult of 2,253 Americans ahead of July 4th and America’s 250th anniversary, finds nearly half (46%) of Americans don’t know what America’s 250th anniversary commemorates. A little more than half (53%) correctly answered that it was the adoption of the Declaration of Independence. 

Despite civic ignorance, overwhelming majorities are grateful (86%) and proud (79%) to be Americans. Most also believe America is a land of opportunity (61%), and even more believe the American Dream (74%) is available to them personally. As the nation celebrates its birth, most Americans feel positive (76%) about the nation’s founding, and 70% believe its founding principles remain relevant today. In particular, overwhelming majorities believe the US Constitution is important for protecting our rights and freedoms (86%) and for enabling America’s prosperity (82%). 

However, nearly 6 in 10 believe the country has moved away from the founding principles, and 56% worry the US could stop being a free country within the next 50 years. People believe corruption, concentrations and abuse of power, and ignoring founding principles could lead to the country’s demise. Americans support constitutional limits, dividing power, and checking the power of the president to maintain their freedoms. For instance, 58% say no political party should be trusted with too much power, 55% say the US Constitution should place firm limits on what the government is allowed to do, even if it makes it harder to solve problems, and 72% say the president should have to obey Supreme Court rulings even when he disagrees. 

Yet, a significant minority is willing to bend the rules when it suits their advantage. Four in 10 Americans think it’s acceptable if a president they support stretched the Constitution to get what they want. 

Another risk to the country is low substantive civic knowledge on basic governance questions. For instance, while 77% know George Washington was the first president, 58% don’t know what the main purpose of the US Constitution is, and 57% don’t know the reason we declared independence from Great Britain and created our government with limited powers. 

Capitalism (52%) is viewed somewhat more favorably than socialism (37%). However, people are evenly divided on socialism, with equal shares who are favorable and unfavorable. Gen Z stands out with more who are supportive of socialism (53%) than capitalism (45%). The survey found the “Democratic Socialist” label can both help and harm a candidate about equally. While 39% said they’d be more likely to vote for a Democratic Socialist candidate, 40% said they’d be less likely, and 22% weren’t sure either way. Democrats (61%) and Gen Z (51%) reported they’d be likely to vote for a candidate with the Democratic Socialist label. 

America’s 250th

Nearly half (46%) of Americans—and nearly two-thirds (61%) of Gen Z—don’t know what America’s 250th commemorates. A little over half (53%) of Americans and 39% of Gen Z correctly identified that the adoption of the Declaration of Independence in 1776—250 years ago—is the reason for this year’s celebration.

America 250 Celebration (4th of July 26)

When asked what people would most like children to learn from America’s 250th anniversary, Americans identified three top priorities: to teach (1) that freedom is rare and must be protected (28%), (2) that patriotism means loyalty to the country’s principles, not to any politician or party (27%), and (3) that America’s history includes both great achievements and serious injustices (26%).

Children Learn (4th of July 26)

Attitudes toward the American Founding

Although many Americans don’t know we’re celebrating the birth of the United States, most have an overwhelmingly positive view of our country and of what the Declaration of Independence made possible. Nearly 9 in 10 (86%) of Americans are “grateful” to be Americans, and 79% are “proud” to be Americans. Furthermore, most believe America offers them a chance to rise: nearly two-thirds (61%) believe America is the “land of opportunity,” and 74% believe the American Dream is available to them.

More than three-fourths (76%) of Americans have a favorable view of the founding of the United States, including 51% who have a strongly favorable view of it. Even 250 years later, 70% also believe the principles of the country’s founding remain relevant today. 

Favorable View of the Founding (4th of July 26)

Appreciation for the founding is not strongly partisan. Majorities of Democrats (81%), Republicans (86%), and independents (64%) all have a favorable view of the nation’s birth. Similarly strong majorities of Democrats (72%), Republicans (83%), and independents (58%) also believe the founding principles remain relevant. Nevertheless, Republicans have more intensely held views, with 67% who feel very favorable toward it and believe the principles definitely remain relevant (58%), compared to 49% of Democrats who feel very favorable and believe the founding principles definitely remain relevant (42%).

When asked which principles and ideals were the most important behind the American founding, no consensus around one single principle emerges. The plurality selected freedom of speech and conscience (17%) as the most important idea, followed by checks and balances to prevent abuse of power (12%), individual liberty (10%), equality under the law (10%), and government by the consent of the governed (10%). Other less popular responses included natural rights (8%), religious freedom (7%), national unity (5%), traditional values (5%), and free enterprise and private property (3%), with 14% unsure. 

Ideals of American Founding (4th of July 26)

Attitudes toward the American Founders

Most Americans also feel favorable toward the country’s founders. Most Americans (67%) say they view the Founding Fathers as “courageous leaders who risked their lives and possessions to secure independence and liberty,” while 16% say they view them as “self-interested elites who mainly sought to increase their own power or wealth,” and 18% weren’t sure either way. 

Young Americans are much less likely than older Americans to have strongly positive views of America’s founding. Seniors (Americans over 65) are 36 points more positive than Americans aged 18–29 (94% vs. 58%). Part of the reason for the difference is that 20% of Gen Z say they don’t know enough about the founding to have an opinion, compared with 4% of seniors. But that’s not all.

A little less than half (49%) of Gen Z agree that the Founding Fathers were courageous leaders who risked their lives and possessions to secure independence and liberty, compared to the vast majority (89%) of seniors—a 40-point difference. Young Americans are 7 times as likely as seniors to adopt a revisionist argument that the Founding Fathers declared independence from Britain mainly to increase their own power and wealth (28% vs. 4%).

Refined Favorable View of Founding (4th of July 26)

Threats to Founding Principles

A majority (57%) believe the country has moved away from the principles and ideals upon which it was founded, including 22% who think the country has moved “far away,” and 35% who think it has moved away “somewhat.” This presents a contrast between the 70% that believe the principles of the founding are still relevant today and the 57% that believe we have strayed from those same principles. 

Ideals 250 years Later (4th of July 26)

Looking ahead to the next 250 years, Americans believe that certain cultural and economic changes are necessary to help the country succeed, namely, reducing corruption and special interest influence (31%); lowering the cost of living (31%); having better political leaders (28%); having a stronger economy (27%); and having respect for the Constitution (21%). Respondents also identified improving Americans’ personal ethics and character (20%), stronger families and communities (19%), better schools and job skills (17%), less government debt (17%), more national unity (17%), better civic education (10%), and more individual freedom (9%) as essential to help the country thrive over the next few centuries.

Heirs to the American Founding

No one alive today participated in the founding-era congresses and conventions that declared American independence, framed the Constitution, and ratified our system of government. Yet most Americans still feel that they are rightful heirs to that founding—that its promises, principles, and responsibilities belong to them, too. More than 7 in 10 Americans (71%) believe that the ideals and institutions of the American founding are “part of their inheritance as an American.” 

While a majority of Americans feel a connection to the country’s founding, the strength of that connection varies widely across demographic groups. The starkest difference is a generational one, as a 33-point difference appears between seniors (88%) and Gen Z (55%) who feel the founding ideals are part of their inheritance. Wealth and education also divide the sentiment, as higher-income Americans (87%) and postgraduates (84%) significantly outpace their respective counterparts of lower-income Americans (63%) and those without a college degree (66%). Race and immigration status likewise draw differences. White Americans (77%) are 15 points more likely than Hispanic Americans (62%) and 18 points more likely than Black Americans (59%) to feel this way. Likewise, native-born Americans (74%) are 17 points more likely than immigrants (57%) and 11 points more likely than 2nd-generation immigrants (63%) to feel they also are heirs to the American founding. Even by gender, men (78%) are 12 points more likely to feel this connection to the founding than women (66%). 

Being an American is a significant part of most people’s personal identity, second only to their family. The survey found that people defined their identity first around being part of their family (86%), then being an American (83%), their gender (78%), their race or identity (73%), their religion (67%), their job or career (66%), and then their political affiliation (62%). This suggests that American identity has the capacity to transcend racial, religious, and gender divisions and offer people something they have in common. 

Most Important Identity (4th of July 26)

Republicans are relatively more likely than Democrats to base their identity on their family (52% vs. 46%), country (53% vs. 37%), and religion (38% vs 26%). For Democrats, their American identity contributes about the same as their race or gender.

Republican Identity (4th of July 26)

1619 Project

The survey also assessed the extent to which people have come to believe a hypothesis put forth in the 1619 Project: that preserving slavery was a primary reason the American Revolution was fought. The survey found a little more than a third (36%) believe this claim, while 39% believe it’s not true, and about a quarter (26%) aren’t sure if it’s true or not true. 

This idea has strongly permeated among the nation’s youth. Young people are more than twice as likely to believe this is true (47%) as to believe it is untrue (21%). This stands in stark contrast to seniors, of whom just 18% believe it is true, compared with 64% who believe it is untrue. Democrats (46%) are also more likely to believe it than Republicans (36%) and independents (25%).

Black Americans (51%) are also far more likely to believe this than not (22%), compared to white Americans who believe it (29%) versus not (46%). Hispanic Americans fall in between, but more believe this (43%) than don’t (30%). 

Preserving Slavery? (4th of July 26)

The US Constitution

Nearly 8 in 10 Americans (79%) say they have a favorable view of the US Constitution, 7% have an unfavorable view, and 15% aren’t sure what they think. Overwhelming majorities of Republicans (88%) and Democrats (83%) have a favorable view of it. However, Democrats have conflicting feelings about it and thus are less strongly favorable (45%) toward it than Republicans (64%).

Most Americans (82%) believe the US Constitution was important for America becoming a prosperous country, and a similar share (86%) view the Constitution as important for protecting their liberty and freedoms—including 46% who believe it’s extremely important, 28% who say it’s very important, and 12% who say it’s somewhat important.

The top five rights and freedoms Americans value most include the freedom of speech (49%), the right to vote and choose our leaders (36%), equal protection under the law (32%), freedom of religion (32%), and the right to due process of law (31%).

Most Valued Rights (4th of July 26)

However, while most Americans have at least an instinctive sense that the US Constitution protects their rights, a majority (58%) don’t actually know how it accomplishes this. Less than half (41%) correctly said that the Constitution’s purpose is to establish and limit the powers of government. The remaining said the purpose of the Constitution was to declare independence from Great Britain (17%), create the presidency, Congress, and Supreme Court (12%), list all federal laws (7%), or create two major political parties (4%), while 18% conceded they don’t know what the purpose of the Constitution is. 

US Constitution: Protection or Hindrance?

A majority (55%) of Americans believe the Constitution should place firm limits on what the government can do, even when those limits make it harder to solve problems. About a quarter (25%) say the Constitution should be interpreted more flexibly so government can act more decisively and quickly to solve problems, while 20% aren’t sure either way. 

Constitutional Convention

Nearly 250 years later, a slim majority (53%) of Americans believe the Constitution is still basically sound as is, while 30% think it’s in need of changes and 17% aren’t sure. Nearly a third (31%) would go so far as to say that we should start from scratch and write a “new American Constitution,” while a slim majority (52%) oppose writing a new constitution, and 16% aren’t sure. A little more than a third (38%) of Americans go even further, saying that we “cannot fix the problems in our government” and thus “we need to tear it down and start over,” while 45% disagree and 17% aren’t sure. 

Constitution Basic (4th of July 26)

Majorities of both Republicans (58%) and Democrats (53%) oppose writing a new constitution. Gen Z stands out with more who would rewrite the Constitution (45%) than would not (33%), while 22% aren’t sure. In contrast, only 10% of seniors would rewrite the Constitution, and 82% would not, and 7% aren’t sure. 

What if the country convened a new constitutional convention? The survey found that attempting to rewrite the Constitution could backfire on both sides. Strong majorities of Americans would support a wide variety of constitutional amendments that partisan political insiders oppose. For instance, majorities of Americans would support amendments to the Constitution that many Democratic political insiders would oppose:

  • 66% support requiring photo ID to vote
  • 69% support requiring a balanced budget amendment
  • 64% support making English the official national language
  • 60% support banning flag burning
  • 59% support basing girls’ and women’s sports on sex at birth

Similarly, majorities of Americans would also support amendments to the Constitution that many Republican political insiders would oppose:

  • Guarantee a right to health care (73%) and free college (60%)
  • Limit money spent on political campaigns (69%)
  • Protect a right to abortion (58%)
  • Ban hate speech (58%)
  • Allow a tax on wealth (58%)

Close to half (48%) would support allowing teachers to lead prayer in public schools, 41% would support abolishing the Electoral College, 38% would support ending birthright citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants, and 36% would support banning DEI in public schools.

Pandora's Box (4th of July 26)

America’s Future and Threats to Freedom

Fear of Losing America (4th of July 26)

Thinking ahead to the next 50 years, a majority (56%) of Americans are worried that the US may stop being a free country. Majorities of both Democrats (65%) and Republicans (54%) are worried. When asked what are the greatest threats to America remaining a free republic, the most common answers given were abuses of power, concentrations of power, and ignoring the limits the Constitution places on power. The top four reasons include:

  • Corruption 30%
  • Politicians ignoring the Constitution (26%)
  • The rich having too much power (24%)
  • Too much power in the presidency (21%)

Other reasons given were moral decline (16%), excessive government spending and borrowing (16%), high levels of immigration (15%), political violence (15%), too much power in DC (15%), economic inequality (14%), government censorship or surveillance (12%), loss of shared values (11%), people refusing to accept election results (10%), and falling birth rates (6%). 

Threats to U.S. (4th of July 26)

Republicans (31%) and Democrats (32%) both ranked corruption as a top threat, and equal shares of each party (26%) selected politicians ignoring the Constitution as a top threat to freedom. However, Republicans’ other top concerns were moral decline (26%), high levels of immigration (25%), and excessive government spending and borrowing (21%). On the other hand, Democrats were relatively more likely to believe that the rich having too much power (34%) and too much power concentrated in the presidency (33%) were top risks. 

Threats to Freedom Barbell (4th of July 26)

Americans also believe that personal ethics matter for retaining their freedom. Nearly 8 in 10 (77%) believe that for a country to remain free, “most people need to try to be good, honest, and responsible.” Majorities of Democrats (81%) and Republicans (82%) agreed. 

Americans really don’t know if America’s best days are ahead of it or behind it; a plurality (41%) are optimistic that the nation’s best days are ahead of it, while about a third (35%) worry our country’s best days were in the past, and a quarter (24%) aren’t sure. 

Attitudes are colored by partisanship, with a majority of Republicans (54%) who believe America’s best days are ahead and a plurality (44%) of Democrats who think the nation’s best days are behind us. Young Americans are also pessimistic, being the only age group with more who think America’s best days were in the past (40%) rather than in the future (35%). In contrast, 30–54 and 55+ are more optimistic than pessimistic about the country’s future.

American Exceptionalism

Majorities of Americans say they are proud (79%) and grateful (86%) to be Americans; however, far fewer believe in the idea of American exceptionalism. Only about a third (34%) believe that the United States “stands above all other countries in the world,” while 40% believe the US is “one of the greatest countries in the world, along with some others,” and 14% said there are other countries better than the US. Nevertheless, taken together, nearly three-fourths (74%) believe that America is among the world’s greatest countries.

America The Greatest (4th of July 26)

The top core values and ideas that Americans believe define our country include

  • Freedom and individual rights (33%)
  • The Constitution (27%)
  • The American Dream and opportunity to succeed (27%)
  • Free Speech (25%)
  • Democracy and elections (21%)
  • Equality under the law (21%)

Other ideas and values that were less likely to be viewed as defining include religious freedom (15%), hard work and personal responsibility (13%), helping those in need (12%), patriotism (12%), capitalism and free enterprise (11%), faith and religion (11%), diversity and immigration (10%), and a shared American culture (7%).

American Dream

Nearly two-thirds of the public (61%) say that America is the “land of opportunity,” and even more–74%–say that they believe the American Dream is achievable for them personally. However, their confidence varies, with only 15% who think it is extremely achievable, 28% who say it’s very achievable, and 31% who say it’s somewhat achievable.

Nearly a third (32%) say America used to be a land of opportunity but no longer is today, and 7% say it never was. Somewhat fewer, about a quarter (26%), say they don’t believe the American Dream is attainable for them personally. 

Both majorities of Democrats (53%) and Republicans (76%) believe the United States, more generally, remains a land of opportunity, but Democrats are less sure than Republicans. When it comes to their own personal experience, both Democrats (71%) and Republicans (82%) are more likely to think the American Dream is achievable for them than when assessing opportunity in the country overall.

Solid majorities of all racial groups believe America continues to be a land of opportunity, including White Americans (60%), Black Americans (60%), Hispanic Americans (61%), and Asian and other Americans (63%), as well as men (67%) and women (55%). A majority of Americans of all ages continue to believe the country offers great opportunity, but Americans under 30 (54%) are relatively less likely than those over 30 (62%) to feel confident. 

One demographic group that stood out as not believing America is a land of opportunity: liberals. Slightly less than half (45%) compared to 74% of conservatives believe America is a place where people of any background can achieve a good life. 

The Constitution as a Safeguard for Opportunity

Americans make a connection between the US Constitution and America being a prosperous country that offers opportunities to people. More than 8 in 10 (82%) of Americans believe that the US Constitution was very important (52%) or somewhat important (30%) for America becoming prosperous. 

When asked what the reasons are why America became a prosperous country, people first choose combinations of freedom, capitalism, and a work ethic:

  • The Constitution and limited government (25%)
  • Free markets and capitalism (22%)
  • A culture of hard work (22%)
  • Democracy/self-government (22%)
  • Innovation and entrepreneurship (21%)

Other reasons people selected include:

  • Rule of law and property rights (16%)
  • Immigration (15%)
  • Religious faith and values (14%)
  • Workers’ rights and labor unions (14%)
  • America’s large size and free trade among states (13%)
  • Government investment in education, science, and infrastructure (13%)
  • An ethical and responsible citizenry (12%)
  • Geography and natural resources (10%)
  • Slavery, land-taking and exploitation (9%)
American Prosperity Bar (4th of July 26)

Partisans place slightly different emphases on which possible reasons matter most. For example, among strong liberals, their top explanations for American prosperity include democracy (28%), immigration (27%), workers’ rights and labor unions (25%), government investment in education, science, and infrastructure (23%), and innovation and entrepreneurship (23%). Among strong conservatives, their top explanations were free markets and capitalism (28%), religious faith and values (28%), a culture of hard work (27%), and the Constitution and limited government (26%).

Revised American Prosperity Bar (4th of July 26)

Americans Still Believe in Constitutional Restraint

Separation of Powers

The survey found that a majority of Americans still support the idea of separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution. Nearly two-thirds (61%) say it’s better “when political power is divided among different branches of government, even if that sometimes makes it harder for the government to act quickly.” About a fifth say it’s better for the government to act quickly and decisively, even if that sometimes means giving leaders more power (19%), and 21% aren’t sure which of these they agree with more. 

Executive Power

A majority (61%) of Americans believe that Congress gives too much of its lawmaking power to the president and federal agencies. But when asked what the best way to make public policy was, only a plurality (45%), albeit not a majority, said that Congress should pass a bill and the president sign it into law; 11% said the president should issue an executive order; 28% said it depends; and 16% weren’t sure. 

Notably, nearly 4 in 10 Americans (38%) say they find it acceptable for a president they supported to “stretch” the Constitution to accomplish something they agreed with, while 39% say it is unacceptable, and 24% aren’t sure.

However, a strong majority draws the line at Supreme Court rulings. Nearly three-fourths (72%) of Americans say the president should have to obey Supreme Court rulings, even when he believes the court is wrong. Majorities of Democrats (81%) and Republicans (68%) agree.

Supreme Court (4th of July 26)

Supreme Court

About a third of Americans support expanding the number of Supreme Court justices from 9 to 13; 31% are opposed, and 33% don’t know enough to say. A slim majority (51%) of Democrats support expanding the number of justices compared to 37% of Republicans and 23% of independents.

Principle Over Party

A solid majority of Americans (58%) say no political party should be trusted with too much power. About a quarter (23%) say their preferred political party can be trusted with more power than the opposing party. Democrats (62%) are somewhat more likely than Republicans (54%) to agree that no political party should be entrusted with too much power.

Purpose of government

The survey investigated how attitudes toward the purpose of government have changed over time. At the time of the nation’s founding, many of the founders would say the main purpose of government was to protect people’s rights and freedom. Over time, however, many Americans came to view a more expansive role for government to solve major social and economic problems. Today, about a third of Americans (36%) believe the main purpose of government is to protect people’s rights and freedoms, and 43% say its purpose is to both protect freedom and solve major social and economic problems, and 10% say its primary job is to solve problems. The remaining 12% aren’t sure either way. This demonstrates that a large share of the population does not believe there is a contradiction between the government attempting to solve major social and economic problems while also protecting Americans’ rights and freedoms.

Significant Knowledge Gaps Exist about Nation’s Founding

The survey included a short civics quiz to assess public knowledge of the country’s founding. Americans were aware of some basic facts but lacked understanding of the substance and context of what established our system of government. 

A majority (61%) of Americans correctly said that the 13 original colonies declared their independence from Great Britain, while 4 in 10 answered incorrectly. A majority also correctly identified George Washington as the country’s first president, while 22% did not give the correct answer. A slim majority (54%) correctly said that the US Constitution creates 3 branches of government, while 45% answered incorrectly.

Civic Questions Incorrect
  • To the best of your knowledge, which country did the original 13 American colonies declare their independence from?
    • Great Britain 61%
    • Incorrect Answer: 40%
      • Europe 4%
      • Canada 3%
      • France 4%
      • Spain 2%
      • Germany 2%
      • Not Sure 25%
  • To the best of your knowledge, who was the first president of the United States?
    • George Washington 77%
    • Incorrect Answer: 22%
      • Thomas Jefferson 2%
      • John Adams 1%
      • Abraham Lincoln 5%
      • King George III 1%
      • Not Sure 13%
  • To the best of your knowledge, how many branches of government does the US Constitution create? 
    • Three Branches: 54%
    • Incorrect Answer: 45%
      • Two 6%
      • Four 10%
      • Five: 4%
      • Not Sure: 25%

However, majorities did not know why we declared independence from Britain, what the main purpose of the Constitution is, or who actually has the final say when the President and the Supreme Court disagree. 

  • 57% of Americans don’t know why the American colonies declared independence from Britain in 1776; only 43% knew it was to protest high taxes and lack of representation in government

  • 58% of Americans don’t know that the main purpose of the U.S. Constitution was to establish and limit the powers of the federal government; 41% answered correctly

  • 55% don’t know that the Supreme Court has final say when the President and the Supreme Court disagree about whether a president’s action is constitutional; 44% knew that the Supreme Court has final say.

Capitalism and Socialism 

Capitalism (52%) is viewed somewhat more favorably than socialism (37%) among Americans generally. But people are evenly divided on socialism, with equal shares who are favorable (37%) as unfavorable (37%). A fifth (21%) have a favorable view of communism.

Socialism Favorability (4th of July 26)

Gen Z stands out for having more people who like socialism (53%) than capitalism (45%). More than a third of Americans under 30 (38%) say they have a favorable view of communism. This means that nearly as many Gen Z Americans have a favorable view of communism (38%) as capitalism (45%). Moreover, Gen Z is the only age group with a more favorable than unfavorable view of communism (38% favorable, 36% unfavorable).

Capitalism/Communism/Socialism (4th of July 26)

Each successive generation becomes less supportive of socialism and communism and somewhat more supportive of capitalism. For instance, while 53% of 18–29-year-olds like socialism, only 37% of 45–64-year-olds and 23% of seniors have a favorable view of it. And while 38% of Gen Z like communism, this drops to 29% among 30–44-year-old millennials, to 19% among 45–54-year-olds, to 13% among 55–64-year-olds, and only 5% among the nation’s seniors. Support for capitalism increases with successive generations, but less so: about half of Americans under 65 have a favorable view of capitalism compared to 64% among seniors.

The survey also found the “Democratic Socialist” label can both help and harm a candidate. About 4 in 10 (39%) said they’d be more likely to vote for such a candidate, 40% said they’d be less likely, and 22% weren’t sure either way. Democrats (61%), Liberals (64%), and Gen Z (51%) reported they’d be more likely to vote for a candidate with the Democratic Socialist label. This helps illuminate recent wins by candidates using the Democratic Socialists of America label in Democratic primaries over the past few weeks. 

Favoring Democratic Socialism Groupings (4th of July 26)

Implications and Conclusion

As the United States approaches its 250th anniversary, Americans remain deeply attached to the country, its founding, and the freedoms it made possible. Large majorities say they are grateful and proud to be Americans, view the nation’s founding favorably, believe the Constitution remains important to protecting liberty, and continue to see America as a land of opportunity. These findings suggest that, despite political polarization and public frustration, the American founding still provides a broadly shared source of national identity.

Yet this attachment is paired with striking uncertainty and concern. Nearly half of Americans do not know what the 250th anniversary commemorates, and many lack basic knowledge about the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution’s purpose, and the structure of constitutional government. Many Americans value the Constitution instinctively but do not fully understand how it protects freedom: by establishing, dividing, and limiting government power. This civic knowledge gap is especially pronounced among younger Americans, who are less likely to feel connected to the founding and more likely to be uncertain or skeptical about the Founders and America’s future.

Majorities believe the country has moved away from its founding principles and worry that the United States could lose its freedom in the coming decades. Americans identify corruption, abuse of power, and politicians’ disregard for the Constitution as major threats to the republic. At the same time, most Americans continue to support constitutional restraint: they prefer divided power over unchecked speed, believe presidents should obey Supreme Court rulings, and say no political party should be trusted with too much power.

Taken together, these findings point to a public that is more constitutionally cautious than the political climate often suggests. Americans may disagree over policy and priorities, but many share a common concern that concentrated power, corruption, and declining civic character threaten self-government. They also broadly agree that freedom depends not only on institutions but on citizens who are honest, responsible, and committed to principles above party.

The 250th anniversary, therefore, presents an opportunity not merely to commemorate the past but to reconnect Americans, especially young Americans, with the meaning of the founding and the principles and habits necessary to sustain a free society. Americans want young people to learn that freedom is rare and must be protected, that patriotism means loyalty to the country’s principles rather than to any party or politician, and that America’s story includes both great achievements and serious injustices.

The central conclusion is that Americans still believe in the promise of the American founding, but they are uncertain whether the country is living up to it. The challenge for the next 250 years is to rebuild civic knowledge, restore trust in and recommit to constitutional limits, reduce corruption and special-interest influence, and cultivate the character and restraint required for a free people to govern themselves.

Methodology

The Cato Institute 2026 4th of July Survey was designed and conducted by the Cato Institute in collaboration with Morning Consult. MorningConsult collected responses online June 25–26, 2026, from a national sample of 2,253 Americans 18 years of age and older. The margin of error for the survey is ± 2 percentage points at the 95 percent level of confidence. Restrictions were put in place to ensure that only the people selected and contacted by Morning Consult are allowed to participate. A more comprehensive methodology description can be found in the topline and crosstab documents.

Full TOPLINES and METHODOLOGY for the survey can be found HERE, and CROSSTABS can be found HERE. Detailed tables can be found HERE.

Related Tags
Constitution and Law, Government and Politics, Public Opinion
June 30, 2026 4:48PM

Trump v. Slaughter Means that Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Reformers Should Adjust Priorities

By Solveig Singleton
Listen to this article
Generated with ElevenLabs AI technology.
Loading the Elevenlabs Text to Speech AudioNative Player...
cfpb consumer
(Getty Images)

A new Supreme Court decision suggests that those seeking reform of the troubled Consumer Financial Protection Bureau should adjust their priorities. 

On June 29, the Supreme Court decided Trump v. Slaughter, ruling that the president of the United States may remove a member of the Federal Trade Commission without cause, even when the law provides that commissioners should serve a seven-year term and may be dismissed only for cause. Going forward, each president may remove commissioners likely to block his agenda, meaning the end of stability across administrations for bipartisan commissions. 

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau—headed by a director, not a commission—is already troubled by abrupt changes of direction on policy as well as a tendency to overreach. Reformers urged Congress to replace the bureau’s sole powerful director with a commission. But as the era of stable bipartisan commissions draws to a close, reform of the bureau’s budget process, enhanced cost-benefit analysis, and subpoena powers should become a higher priority.

The bureau’s designers hoped to insulate the agency from financial firms’ influence on legislators by funding it from Fed earnings rather than appropriations. And they wanted the bureau to regulate aggressively and move fast. The bureau’s early supporters noticed that commissions talk things over and compromise—and usually include members skeptical of regulation. Therefore, the bureau was headed by a sole, powerful director.

As incidents of bureau overreach mounted, a deliberative commission structure looked like a good idea. Thus, H.R. 3445, the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection Commission Act, proposes that the bureau be headed by a bipartisan commission. After Slaughter, however, commissions may no longer be bipartisan, especially when a new administration represents a change in political party. Discussion among commissioners all of one party might still boost the quality of analysis, because a sole director does not benefit from dialogue with peers. But commissions, too, have done more harm than good. The saga of net neutrality rules at the FCC—imposed, removed, and reimposed—shows that a commission was never a guarantor of certainty. Under Slaughter, a commission structure is unlikely to significantly shift the dynamic at the bureau. 

Indeed, lawmakers must contend with a new dynamic across all agencies: lawmakers will no longer be able to count on minority commissioners to promote stability. Agencies’ essential duties and limitations on agency power must be set out in detail in the agency’s organic statute. And the laws the agency enforces must avoid ambiguity. 

Fortunately, efforts to reform the bureau along these lines are already underway, as it never had a bipartisan commission. Worthwhile proposals before lawmakers at present include:

  • Funding the bureau from congressional appropriations.
  • Stipulating that the bureau should conduct more robust cost-benefit analysis.
  • Limiting the bureau’s tendency to issue poorly justified subpoenas.
  • Clarifying the bureau’s authority to regulate deceptive and abusive practices.
  • Abolishing the bureau entirely (stopping fraud is important, but this work could be done by others).

Other ideas should be explored too, including:

  • Ending the bureau’s supervisory authority. It isn’t needed. The Federal Trade Commission does not need to supervise Target to protect consumers. Consumers complain when mistreated, so consumer protection will not become a systemic financial risk in the same way that inadequate capital reserves might. 
  • Explicitly giving targets of bureau prosecutions the right to a jury trial when punitive fines are sought.
  • Creating a cadre of administrative law judges independent of the agency and its powerful director—ideally, housing them outside the agency entirely.

Thriving and prosperous markets depend on certain stable rules that establish fundamental property and contract rights. For decades, lawmakers erred in handing administrative agencies broad discretion to mess with markets and ignore the rule of law. The Supreme Court’s decision in Slaughter hands the broad discretionary power of administrative agencies over to the executive branch. And the responsibility for curbing this discretion and ensuring stable foundational rules has shifted back to Congress. Fortunately, reform of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau along those lines is already underway.

Related Tags
Constitutional Law, Banking and Finance, Regulation, Government and Politics, Other Government Agencies and Programs, Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives
June 23, 2026 5:36PM

Trump Administration Adds SandboxQA to Its Ad Hoc Equity Portfolio

By Tad DeHaven
Listen to this article
Generated with ElevenLabs AI technology.
Loading the Elevenlabs Text to Speech AudioNative Player...
trump lutnick
(Getty Images)

Last week, the Commerce Department announced a $500 million CHIPS Research and Development award to SandboxAQ, an artificial intelligence and quantum-related software company spun out of Alphabet. In return, Commerce will receive a “minority, non-controlling equity stake.” According to Reuters, the government will also receive royalty payments if SandboxAQ successfully develops materials that are licensed to industrial partners. 

By my count, that’s the administration’s 23rd equity deal, including the “golden share” in US Steel (see table below). 

Commerce says the money will support the company’s work on four semiconductor-related materials problems: alternatives to PFAS chemicals, catalysts used in chip manufacturing, rare-earth-free magnets, and battery chemistries for backup power at semiconductor facilities. The public justification is the usual industrial policy script: resilient supply chains, Chinese dominance of critical minerals, semiconductor dependence on specialized materials, and therefore, Washington must intervene. 

There’s no doubt that SandboxAQ’s cutting-edge endeavors could yield broader economic benefits, but that doesn’t mean the federal government should invest $500 million in one private company, take an ownership stake, and negotiate for a cut of future commercial revenue. 

This is not a struggling upstart with no access to capital. Reuters reports that the company was valued at $5.75 billion in 2025 and has raised more than $1 billion in funding. Its backers include Nvidia, Google, Eric Schmidt, T. Rowe Price, and others. Recent financial statements show that Nvidia and Alphabet, Google’s parent company, together had more than $175 billion in cash and other readily investable resources available. 

The deeper issue isn’t whether the government might someday profit from the deal. As I’ve argued before, the federal government isn’t a mutual fund. A future gain won’t meaningfully improve the federal government’s woeful fiscal position, and a loss would be absorbed by taxpayers. Either way, government ownership creates favoritism, conflicts of interest, and invites political meddling and corruption. 

The royalty provision makes the deal even more objectionable.

Commerce’s legal theory appears to rest on broad “other transaction” authority. The CHIPS Act allows Commerce to enter into contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, and “other transactions” on terms the secretary considers appropriate and to require payments to the department as a condition of support. But Congress didn’t clearly tell Commerce it could become a shareholder or royalty collector in private technology companies. 

That language comes from Commerce’s own funding notice. Under the more familiar Bayh-Dole model, companies generally retain ownership of federally funded inventions. At the same time, the government receives a paid-up license, allowing it to use the invention for government purposes without paying additional royalties. That’s quite different from Commerce taking equity and grabbing a cut of future commercial licensing revenue. 

The royalties would be better left in the private sector. SandboxAQ could retain them to finance its own research, operations, or expansion, or private backers could receive them as compensation for risking their own capital. In addition, competitors should be able to pursue alternative technologies without being forced to compete against a government-sponsored rival. 

Instead, the administration is inserting the federal government into another company’s boardroom—not because it’s primarily concerned about supply chains or taxpayer “upside,” but because Trump wanted a government investment portfolio he could control, with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick dutifully serving as fund manager and dealmaker. 

Washington’s growing portfolio
Related Tags
State Corporatism, Economics, Government and Politics
June 23, 2026 10:42AM

Government Is a Leaky Bucket

By Ryan Bourne and Chris Edwards
Listen to this article
Generated with ElevenLabs AI technology.
Loading the Elevenlabs Text to Speech AudioNative Player...

Supporters of federal spending make it sound simple: the government designs expert programs, raises money from taxes, and steers it to individuals, businesses, and nonprofit groups to solve problems in society.

Our new study, Federal Government Spending Is a Leaky Bucket, describes why this view is far too optimistic. Every step in raising and spending money is undermined by design errors, bureaucratic inefficiencies, and behavioral responses that result in most programs generating more costs than benefits. 

The study’s name borrows from economist Arthur Okun, who famously likened welfare programs to a leaky bucket. 

a

We argue that the government bucket is even leakier than Okun described and that his lessons apply to all federal programs—whether spending on welfare, defense, infrastructure, or health care. 

Our study provides a framework to understand why most federal spending undermines the economy and why most activities should be left to the states and the private sector. It details the many ways policymakers—carrying their program buckets—are leaking resources all over, making us worse off.

Related Tags
Tax and Budget Policy, Government and Politics, Social Welfare and Poverty